Manifestation of progress in modern society. Criteria for the progress of society

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

SEI VPO "Volga-Vyatka Academy of Public Administration"

Branch of the Volga-Vyatka Academy of Public Administration

in Cheboksary, Chuvash Republic

Department of Natural Sciences and Humanities

ABSTRACT

Social progress and its criteria in the light of modern social experience

Speciality: Finance and Credit

Specialization: State and

municipal finance

Fulfilled :

full-time student

group 09-F-11 Shestakov I.A.

Checked :

Ph.D. Semedova - Polupan N.G.

Cheboksary

1) Introduction………………………………………………………………..3-4

2) Social progress……………………………………………....5-7

3) Philosophical view on the development of society………………………....8-9

4) The inconsistency of social progress……………………..10-11

5) Criteria of Social Progress………………………………....12-17

6) Conclusion…………………………………………………………..18-19

7) List of used literature………………………………….20

Introduction

The idea of ​​social progress is a product of modern times. This means that it was at this time that it took root in the minds of people and began to form their worldview, the idea of ​​the progressive, upward development of society. There was no such representation in antiquity. The ancient worldview, as is known, was of a cosmocentric nature. And this means that the man of antiquity was coordinated in relation to nature, the cosmos. Hellenic philosophy, as it were, inscribed a person in the cosmos, and the cosmos, in the view of ancient thinkers, was something abiding, eternal and beautiful in its orderliness. And man had to find his place in this eternal cosmos, and not in history. The ancient worldview was also characterized by the idea of ​​an eternal cycle - such a movement in which something, being created and destroyed, invariably returns to itself. The idea of ​​eternal return is deeply rooted in ancient philosophy; we find it in Heraclitus, Empedocles, and the Stoics. In general, the movement in a circle was considered in antiquity as ideally correct, perfect. It seemed to perfect ancient thinkers because it has no beginning and end and occurs in one and the same place, showing, as it were, immobility and eternity.

The idea of ​​social progress is established in the Age of Enlightenment. This epoch raises reason, knowledge, science, human freedom to the shield and evaluates history from this point of view, opposing itself to previous epochs, where, in the opinion of the enlighteners, ignorance and despotism prevailed. The Enlighteners in a certain way understood the era of their time (as the era of "enlightenment"), its role and significance for man, and through the prism of the modernity understood in this way, they considered the past of mankind. The opposition of modernity, interpreted as the advent of the era of reason, to the past of mankind, contained, of course, a gap between the present and the past, but as soon as an attempt was made to restore a historical connection between them on the basis of reason and knowledge, the idea of ​​an upward movement in history immediately arose, about progress. The development and dissemination of knowledge was seen as a gradual and cumulative process. An indisputable model for such a reconstruction of the historical process was the accumulation of scientific knowledge that took place in modern times. The mental formation and development of the individual, the individual, also served as a model for them: being transferred to humanity as a whole, it gave the historical progress of the human mind. Thus, Condorcet, in his Sketch of the Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, says that "this progress is subject to the same general laws that are observed in the development of our individual faculties ...".

The idea of ​​social progress is the idea of ​​history, more precisely, the world history of mankind. This idea is designed to tie the story together, give it direction and meaning. But many Enlightenment thinkers, substantiating the idea of ​​progress, sought to consider it as a natural law, blurring to some extent the line between society and nature. The naturalistic interpretation of progress was their way of imparting an objective character to progress.

Social Progress

Progress (from lat. progressus - moving forward) is such a direction of development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. The credit for putting forward the idea and developing the theory of social progress belongs to the philosophers of the second half of the 18th century, and the formation of capitalism and the maturation of European bourgeois revolutions served as the socio-economic basis for the very emergence of the idea of ​​social progress. By the way, both creators of the initial concepts of social progress - Turgot and Condorcet - were active public figures in pre-revolutionary and revolutionary France. And this is quite understandable: the idea of ​​social progress, the recognition of the fact that humanity as a whole, in the main, is moving forward, is an expression of the historical optimism inherent in progressive social forces.
Three characteristic features distinguished the original progressive concepts.

Firstly, it is idealism, i.e., an attempt to find the reasons for the progressive development of history in the spiritual beginning - in the infinite ability to improve the human intellect (the same Turgot and Condorcet) or in the spontaneous self-development of the absolute spirit (Hegel). Accordingly, the criterion of progress was also seen in the phenomena of a spiritual order, in the level of development of one or another form of social consciousness: science, morality, law, religion. By the way, progress was noticed, first of all, in the field of scientific knowledge (F. Bacon, R. Descartes), and then the corresponding idea was extended to social relations in general.

Secondly, a significant shortcoming of many early conceptions of social progress was the non-dialectical consideration of social life. In such cases, social progress is understood as a smooth evolutionary development, without revolutionary leaps, without backward movements, as a continuous ascent in a straight line (O. Comte, G. Spencer).

Thirdly, the upward development in form was limited to the achievement of any one chosen social system. This rejection of the idea of ​​unlimited progress was very clearly reflected in Hegel's assertions. He proclaimed the Christian-German world as the pinnacle and completion of world progress, affirming freedom and equality in their traditional interpretation.

These shortcomings were largely overcome in the Marxist understanding of the essence of social progress, which includes the recognition of its inconsistency and, in particular, the moment that one and the same phenomenon and even a stage of historical development as a whole can be both progressive in one respect and regressive. , reactive in another. This, as we have seen, is one of the possible options for the state to influence the development of the economy.

Consequently, speaking of the progressive development of mankind, we have in mind the main, main direction of the historical process as a whole, its resultant in relation to the main stages of development. Primitive communal system, slave-owning society, feudalism, capitalism, the era of socialized social relations in the formational section of history; primitive pre-civilization, agricultural, industrial and information-computer waves in its civilizational section are the main "blocks" of historical progress, although in some of its specific parameters the subsequent formation and stage of civilization may be inferior to the previous ones. So, in a number of areas of spiritual culture, feudal society was inferior to slave-owning, which served as the basis for the enlighteners of the 18th century. look at the Middle Ages as a simple "break" in the course of history, not paying attention to the great successes made during the Middle Ages: the expansion of the cultural area of ​​​​Europe, the formation there in the neighborhood of great viable nations, finally, the huge technical successes of the XIV- 15th century and creation of prerequisites for the emergence of experimental natural science.

If we try to determine in general terms the causes of social progress, then they will be the needs of man, which are the product and expression of his nature as a living and, no less, as a social being. As already noted in Chapter Two, these needs are diverse in nature, nature, duration of action, but in any case they determine the motives of human activity. In everyday life for thousands of years, people did not at all set as their conscious goal to ensure social progress, and social progress itself is by no means some kind of idea (“program”) initially incorporated in the course of history, the implementation of which constitutes its innermost meaning. In the process of real life, people are driven by needs generated by their biological and social nature; and in the course of realizing their vital needs, people change the conditions of their existence and themselves, because each satisfied need gives rise to a new one, and its satisfaction, in turn, requires new actions, the consequence of which is the development of society.

As you know, society is in constant motion. Thinkers have long pondered the questions: in what direction is it moving? Can this movement be likened, for example, to cyclical changes in nature: summer is followed by autumn, then winter, spring and again summer? And so for thousands and thousands of years. Or, perhaps, the life of society is similar to the life of a living being: the organism that was born grows up, becomes mature, then grows old and dies? Does the direction of the development of society depend on the conscious activity of people?

Philosophical view on the development of society

Which path is society following: the path of progress or regression? What the answer to this question will be depends on how people think about the future: does it bring a better life or does it bode well?

ancient greek poet Hesiod(VIII-VII centuries BC) wrote about five stages in the life of mankind. The first stage was the "golden age", when people lived easily and carelessly, the second - the "silver age", when morality and piety began to decline. So, sinking lower and lower, people found themselves in the "iron age", when evil and violence reign everywhere, justice is trampled on. It is probably not difficult for you to determine how Hesiod saw the path of mankind: progressive or regressive?

Unlike Hesiod, the ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle viewed history as a cyclic cycle repeating the same stages.

The development of the idea of ​​historical progress is connected with the achievements of science, crafts, arts, and the revival of social life in the Renaissance. One of the first to put forward the theory of social progress was the French philosopher Anne Robert Turgot(1727-1781). His contemporary French philosopher-enlightener Jacques Antoine Condorcet(1743-1794) wrote that history presents a picture of continuous change, a picture of the progress of the human mind. Observation of this historical picture shows in the modifications of the human race, in its incessant renewal, in the infinity of ages the path along which he followed, the steps he took, striving for truth or happiness. Observations on what man was and what he has now become will help us, wrote Condorcet, to find the means to secure and hasten the new advances that his nature allows him to hope for.

So, Condorcet sees the historical process as a path of social progress, in the center of which is the upward development of the human mind. Hegel considered progress not only as a principle of reason, but also as a principle of world events. This belief in progress was also accepted by K. Marx, who believed that humanity is moving towards ever greater mastery of nature, the development of production and of man himself.

19th and 20th centuries were marked by turbulent events that gave new "information for reflection" about the progress and regression in the life of society. In the XX century. Sociological theories appeared that abandoned the optimistic view of the development of society, characteristic of the ideas of progress. Instead, they offer theories of cyclical circulation, pessimistic ideas of the "end of history", global environmental, energy and nuclear disasters. One of the points of view on the issue of progress was put forward by the philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper, who wrote: “If we think that history is progressing, or that we are forced to progress, then we are making the same mistake as those who believe that history has a meaning that can be discovered in it, and not given to it. After all, to progress means to move towards a certain goal that exists for us as human beings. For history, this is impossible. Only we human individuals can progress, and we can do so by defending and strengthening those democratic institutions on which freedom, and with it progress, depends. We will achieve great success in this if we are more aware of the fact that progress depends on us, on our vigilance, on our efforts, on the clarity of our concept regarding our goals and the realistic choice of such goals.

Controversy of social progress

Any person, even a little familiar with history, will easily find in it facts that testify to its progressive progressive development, to its movement from lower to higher. "Homo sapiens" (reasonable man) as a biological species is higher on the ladder of evolution than its predecessors - Pithecanthropes, Neanderthals. The progress of technology is obvious: from stone tools to iron ones, from simple hand tools to machines that colossally increase the productivity of human labor, from the use of the muscular strength of humans and animals to steam engines, electric generators, nuclear power, from primitive means of transportation to cars, airplanes, space ships. The progress of technology has always been associated with the development of knowledge, and the last 400 years - with the progress primarily of scientific knowledge. It would seem that progress in history is obvious. But this is by no means generally accepted. In any case, there are theories that either deny progress or accompany its recognition with such reservations that the concept of progress loses all objective content, appears as relativistic, depending on the position of this or that subject, on what system of values ​​he approaches history with.

And it must be said that the denial or relativization of progress is not completely groundless. The progress of technology, which underlies the growth of labor productivity, in many cases leads to the destruction of nature and the undermining of the natural foundations of the existence of society. Science is used to create not only more perfect productive forces, but also destructive forces that are ever growing in their power. Computerization, the widespread use of information technology in various types of activities, limitlessly expands the creative possibilities of a person and at the same time poses a lot of dangers for him, starting with the emergence of various kinds of new diseases (for example, it is already known that prolonged continuous work with computer displays adversely affects vision , especially in children) and ending with possible situations of total control over personal life.

The development of civilization brought with it a clear softening of morals, the assertion (at least in the minds of people) of the ideals of humanism. But the 20th century saw two of the bloodiest wars in human history; Europe was flooded with a black wave of fascism, which announced publicly that the enslavement and even destruction of people treated as representatives of the "lower races" is quite legitimate. In the 20th century, the world is shaken from time to time by outbreaks of terrorism by right-wing and left-wing extremists, for whom human life is a bargaining chip in their political games. The wide spread of drug addiction, alcoholism, crime - organized and unorganized - is all this evidence of the progress of mankind? And did all the wonders of technology and the achievement of relative material well-being in economically developed countries make their inhabitants happier in every way?

In addition, in their actions and assessments, people are guided by interests, and what some people or social groups consider progress, others often evaluate from opposite positions. However, does this give grounds to say that the concept of progress depends entirely on the assessments of the subject, that there is nothing objective in it? I think that this is a rhetorical question.

Criteria of social progress.

In the extensive literature on social progress, there is currently no single answer to the main question: what is the general sociological criterion of social progress?

A relatively small number of authors argue that the very formulation of the question of a single criterion of social progress is meaningless, since human society is a complex organism, the development of which is carried out along different lines, which makes it impossible to formulate a single criterion. The majority of authors consider it possible to formulate a single general sociological criterion of social progress. However, already in the very formulation of such a criterion, there are significant discrepancies.

Condorcet (like other French Enlighteners) considered the development of the mind to be the criterion of progress. . The utopian socialists put forward a moral criterion for progress. Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should adopt a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle that all people should treat each other as brothers. A contemporary of the utopian socialists, a German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution of the question of historical progress is complicated by the fact that supporters and opponents of faith in the perfection of mankind are completely confused in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field of morality , others - about the progress of science and technology , which, as Schelling wrote, from a historical point of view is rather a regression, and offered his own solution to the problem: only a gradual approach to the legal order can serve as a criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race. Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in the consciousness of freedom. . As the consciousness of freedom grows, the progressive development of society takes place.

As you can see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to overcome this problem was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. And reason, and morality, and science, and technology, and the legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these indicators are very important, but not universal, not covering the life of a person and society as a whole.

The dominant idea of ​​infinite progress inevitably led to what seemed to be the only possible solution to the problem; the main, if not the only, criterion of social progress can only be the development of material production, which, in the final analysis, predetermines the change in all other aspects and spheres of social life. Among Marxists, V. I. Lenin insisted on this conclusion more than once, who as early as 1908 called for considering the interests of the development of productive forces as the highest criterion of progress. After October, Lenin returned to this definition and emphasized that the state of the productive forces is the main criterion for all social development, since each subsequent socio-economic formation finally defeated the previous one precisely because it opened up more scope for the development of productive forces, achieved a higher productivity of social labor. .

A serious argument in favor of this position is that the very history of mankind begins with the manufacture of tools and exists due to continuity in the development of productive forces.

It is noteworthy that the conclusion about the state and level of development of the productive forces as the general criterion of progress was shared by the opponents of Marxism, the technists, on the one hand, and the scientists, on the other. A legitimate question arises: how could the concepts of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and scientism (i.e., idealism) converge at one point? The logic of this convergence is as follows. The scientist discovers social progress, first of all, in the development of scientific knowledge, but after all, scientific knowledge acquires the highest meaning only when it is realized in practice, and, above all, in material production.

In the process of the ideological confrontation between the two systems, which is still fading into the past, the technologists used the thesis of the productive forces as the general criterion of social progress to prove the superiority of the West, which was and is going ahead in this indicator. The disadvantage of this criterion is that the assessment of the productive forces involves taking into account their number, nature, the level of development achieved and the productivity of labor associated with it, the ability to grow, which is very important when comparing different countries and stages of historical development. For example, the number of production forces in modern India is greater than in South Korea, and their quality is lower. If we take the development of productive forces as the criterion of progress; evaluating them in dynamics, this presupposes a comparison no longer from the point of view of the greater or lesser development of the productive forces, but from the point of view of the course, the speed of their development. But in this case, the question arises, which period should be taken for comparison.

Some philosophers believe that all difficulties will be overcome if we take the mode of production of material goods as a general sociological criterion of social progress. A weighty argument in favor of such a position is that the foundation of social progress is the development of the mode of production as a whole, that by taking into account the state and growth of productive forces, as well as the nature of production relations, it is possible to show much more fully the progressive nature of one formation in relation to another.

Far from denying that the transition from one mode of production to another, more progressive, underlies progress in a number of other areas, opponents of the point of view under consideration almost always note that the main question remains unresolved: how to determine the very progressiveness of this new production method.

Rightly believing that human society is, first of all, a developing community of people, another group of philosophers puts forward the development of man himself as a general sociological criterion of social progress. It is indisputable that the course of human history really testifies to the development of people who make up human society, their social and individual strengths, abilities, and inclinations. The advantage of this approach is that it allows measuring social progress by the progressive development of the very subjects of historical creativity - people.

The most important criterion of progress is the level of humanism of the society, i.e. the position of the individual in it: the degree of its economic, political and social liberation; the level of satisfaction of its material and spiritual needs; the state of her psychophysical and social health. According to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of a person in a free society also means the disclosure of his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. The development of human qualities depends on the living conditions of people. The more fully the various needs of a person in food, clothing, housing, transport services, his requests in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral relations between people become, the more accessible for a person are the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities. The more favorable the conditions for the development of the physical, intellectual, mental forces of a person, his moral principles, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. In short, the more humane the conditions of life, the more opportunities for the development of the human in a person: reason, morality, creative forces.

Let us note, by the way, that inside this indicator, which is complex in its structure, one can and should be singled out, which, in fact, combines all the others. That, in my opinion, is the average life expectancy. And if it in a given country is 10-12 years less than in the group of developed countries, and besides, it shows a tendency to further decrease, the question of the degree of progressiveness of this country should be decided accordingly. For, as one of the famous poets said, "all progress is reactionary if a person collapses."

The level of society's humanism as an integrative (ie, passing through and absorbing changes literally in all spheres of society's life) criterion incorporates the criteria discussed above. Each subsequent formational and civilizational stage is more progressive in terms of personality - it expands the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, entails the development of his needs and the improvement of his abilities. It suffices to compare in this respect the status of a slave and a serf, a serf and a wage worker under capitalism. At first, it may seem that the slave-owning formation, which marked the beginning of the era of exploitation of man by man, stands apart in this respect. But, as F. Engels explained, even for a slave, not to mention the free ones, slavery was a personal progress: if before the prisoner was killed or eaten, now he was left to live.

So, the content of social progress was, is and will be the "humanization of man", achieved through the contradictory development of his natural and social forces, that is, the productive forces and the whole range of social relations. From the foregoing, we can conclude that there is a universal criterion for social progress: progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism. . The thoughts of the world community about the "limits to growth" have significantly actualized the problem of the criteria for social progress. Indeed, if in the social world around us not everything is as simple as it seemed and seems to the progressives, then by what most essential signs can one judge the progressiveness of social development as a whole, the progressiveness, conservatism or reactionary nature of certain phenomena?

We note right away that the question “how to measure” social progress has never received an unambiguous answer in the philosophical and sociological literature. This situation is largely due to the complexity of society as a subject and object of progress, its diversity and multi-quality. Hence the search for its own, local criterion for each sphere of public life. But at the same time, society is an integral organism and, as such, it must meet the basic criterion of social progress. People, as G. V. Plekhanov noted, do not make several stories, but one story of their own relations. Our thinking is able and must reflect this unified historical practice in its entirety.

Conclusion

1) Society is a complex organism in which various “organs” function (enterprises, associations of people, state institutions, etc.), various processes (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) simultaneously occur, and various activities of people unfold. All these parts of one social organism, all these processes, various types of activity are interconnected and, at the same time, may not coincide in their development. Moreover, individual processes, changes taking place in different areas of society can be multidirectional, i.e., progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another. Thus, it is impossible to find any general criterion by which it would be possible to judge the progress of this or that society. Like many processes in our life, social progress based on various criteria can be characterized in different ways. Therefore, in my opinion, there is simply no general criterion.

2) Despite the inconsistency and ambiguity of many provisions of the socio-political concept of Aristotle, the approaches he proposed to the analysis of the state, the method of political science and its lexicon (including the history of the issue, the formulation of the problem, the arguments for and against, etc.) , highlighting what is the subject of political reflection and reasoning, and today have a fairly noticeable impact on political research. The reference to Aristotle is still a fairly weighty scientific argument confirming the truth of the conclusions about political processes and phenomena. The concept of progress, as mentioned above, is based on some value or set of values. But the concept of progress has become so firmly established in the modern mass consciousness that we are faced with a situation where the very idea of ​​progress - progress as such - acts as a value. Progress, therefore, by itself, regardless of any values, tries to fill life and history with meaning, and verdicts are passed on its behalf. Progress can be conceived either as striving for some goal, or as an endless movement and deployment. Obviously, progress without a foundation in some other value that would serve as its goal is possible only as an endless ascent. Its paradox lies in the fact that movement without a goal, movement to nowhere, generally speaking, is meaningless.

List of used literature

1. Philosophy: Textbook / Gubin V.D.; Sidorina T.Yu. - M. 2005

2. Philosophy: A textbook for students. universities / P.V. Alekseev; A.V. Panin. - 3rd ed.-M.: Prospekt, 2004 - 608s.

3. Philosophy: Reader / K.Kh.Delokarov; S. B. Rotsinsky. - M.: RAGS, 2006.-768s.

4. Philosophy: Textbook / V.P. Kokhanovsky. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2006.- 576s.

5. Political sociology: Textbook / Yu.S. Bortsov; Yu.G.Volkov. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2001.

6. Social Philosophy: Textbook. / Ed. I. A. Gobozova. Moscow: publisher Savin, 2003.

7. Introduction to philosophy: Textbook for universities / Ed. coll.: Frolov I.T. and others. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M: Republic, 2002.

It is very important to understand the direction in which our society is constantly changing and developing. This article is dedicated to this goal. Let's try to determine the criteria for social progress and answer a number of other questions. First of all, let's understand what progress and regression are.

Consideration of concepts

Social progress is such a direction of development, which is characterized by progressive movement from simple and lower forms of organization of society to more complex, higher ones. Opposite to this term is the concept of "regression", that is, a reverse movement - a return to obsolete relations and structures, degradation, the direction of development from higher to lower.

The history of the formation of ideas about the measures of progress

The problem of criteria for social progress has long worried thinkers. The idea that changes in society are precisely a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but was finally formed in the works of M. Condorcet, A. Turgot and other French enlighteners. These thinkers saw the criteria for social progress in the development of the mind, the spread of enlightenment. This optimistic view of the historical process in the 19th century was replaced by other, more complex concepts. For example, Marxism sees progress in changing socio-economic formations from lower to higher ones. Some thinkers believed that the consequence of moving forward is the growth of the heterogeneity of society, the complication of its structure.

In modern science, historical progress is usually associated with such a process as modernization, that is, the transition of society from agrarian to industrial and further to post-industrial.

Scientists who do not share the idea of ​​progress

Not everyone accepts the idea of ​​progress. Some thinkers reject it in relation to social development - either predicting the "end of history", or saying that societies develop independently of each other, multilinear, in parallel (O. Spengler, N. Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee), or considering history as a cycle with a series of ups and downs (J. Vico).

For example, Arthur Toynbee singled out 21 civilizations, in each of which certain phases of formation are distinguished: emergence, growth, breakdown, decline, and, finally, decomposition. Thus, he abandoned the thesis of the unity of the historical process.

O. Spengler wrote about the "decline of Europe". "Anti-progressism" is especially bright in the works of K. Popper. In his view, progress is a movement towards a specific goal, which is possible only for a particular person, but not in general for history. The latter can be seen as both a forward movement and a regression.

Progress and regress are not mutually exclusive concepts

The progressive development of society, obviously, in certain periods does not exclude regression, return movements, civilizational dead ends, even breakdowns. Yes, and it is hardly possible to speak of an unambiguously rectilinear development of mankind, because there are clearly both leaps forward and setbacks. Progress in a certain area, in addition, can be the cause of a decline, regression in another. Thus, the development of machinery, technologies, tools of labor is a clear evidence of progress in the economy, but it is precisely this development that has put our world on the brink of a global environmental catastrophe, having depleted the Earth's natural reserves.

Society today is also blamed for the crisis of the family, the decline of morality, lack of spirituality. The price of progress is high: for example, the conveniences of urban life are accompanied by various "urban diseases". Sometimes the negative consequences of progress are so obvious that a legitimate question arises as to whether it is even possible to say that humanity is moving forward.

Criteria of social progress: history

The question of the measures of social development is also relevant. Here, too, there is no agreement in the scientific world. The French enlighteners saw such a criterion in the development of reason, in increasing the degree of rationality of social organization. Some other thinkers and scientists (for example, A. Saint-Simon) believed that the highest criterion of social progress is the state of morality in society, the approximation to early Christian ideals.

G. Hegel adhered to a different opinion. He associated progress with freedom - the degree of its awareness by people. Marxism also proposed its own criterion of development: according to the supporters of this concept, it consists in the growth of productive forces.

K. Marx, seeing the essence of development in the increasing subordination of man to the forces of nature, reduced progress in general to a more particular one - in the production sphere. Contributing to development, he considered only those social relations that at this stage correspond to the level of productive forces, and also open up scope for the improvement of the person himself (acting as an instrument of production).

Criteria of social development: modernity

Philosophy subjected the criteria of social progress to a thorough analysis and revision. In modern social science, the applicability of many of them is disputed. The state of the economic foundation by no means determines the nature of the development of other spheres of social life.

The goal, and not just a means of social progress, is the creation of the necessary conditions for the harmonious and comprehensive development of the individual. Consequently, the criterion of social progress is precisely the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to a person in order to maximize his potential. According to the conditions created in society to meet the totality of the needs of the individual and his free development, the degree of progressiveness of this system, the criteria for social progress, should be assessed.

Let's summarize the information. The table below will help you learn the main criteria for social progress.

The table may be supplemented to include the points of view of other thinkers.

There are two forms of progress in society. Let's consider them below.

Revolution

A revolution is a complex or complete change in most or all aspects of society, affecting the foundations of the existing system. More recently, it was regarded as a universal universal "law of transition" from one socio-economic formation to another. However, scientists could not detect any signs of a social revolution during the transition to a class system from the primitive communal one. Therefore, it was necessary to expand the concept so that it could be applied to any transition between formations, but this led to the destruction of the original semantic content of the term. And the mechanism of a real revolution could be found only in phenomena relating to the era of the New Age (that is, during the transition to capitalism from feudalism).

Revolution from the point of view of Marxism

Following the Marxist methodology, we can say that a social revolution means a radical social upheaval that changes the structure of society and signifies a qualitative leap in progressive development. The deepest and most general cause of the rise of the social revolution is the otherwise insoluble conflict between the productive forces, which are growing, and the system of social institutions and relations, which remain unchanged. The aggravation against this background of political, economic and other contradictions in society, in the end, leads to a revolution.

The latter is always an active political action on the part of the people; its main goal is to transfer the management of society into the hands of a new social class. The difference between revolution and evolution is that the former is considered concentrated in time, that is, it happens quickly, and the masses become its direct participants.

The dialectics of such concepts as revolution and reform seems to be very complicated. The first, as a deeper action, most often absorbs the latter, thus, the action "from below" is supplemented by the activity "from above".

Many modern scholars urge us to abandon the excessive exaggeration in history of the significance of the social revolution, from the idea that it is an inevitable regularity in the solution of historical problems, because it has by no means always been the dominant form that determines social progress. Much more often, changes in the life of society occurred as a result of action "from above", that is, reforms.

Reform

This reorganization, transformation, change in some aspect of social life, which does not destroy the existing foundations of the social structure, keeps power in the hands of the ruling class. Thus, the understood path of a stepwise transformation of relations is opposed to a revolution that sweeps away the old system and orders to the ground. Marxism regarded the evolutionary process, which preserved the remnants of the past for a long time, as too painful and unacceptable for the people. Adherents of this concept believed that since reforms are carried out exclusively "from above" by forces that have power and do not want to part with it, their result will always be lower than expected: transformations are characterized by inconsistency and half-heartedness.

Underestimation of reforms

It was explained by the famous position formulated by V.I. Lenin - that the reforms are "a by-product of the revolution." Note: K. Marx already believed that reforms are never the result of the weakness of the strong, since they are brought to life precisely by the strength of the weak.

His Russian follower strengthened the denial of the possibility that the "tops" might have their own incentives at the start of reforms. IN AND. Lenin believed that reforms were a by-product of the revolution because they were unsuccessful attempts to stifle, weaken the revolutionary struggle. Even in cases where the reforms were clearly not the result of the actions of the popular masses, Soviet historians still explained them by the desire of the authorities to prevent encroachments on the existing system.

The "reform-revolution" ratio in modern social science

Over time, Russian scientists gradually freed themselves from the existing nihilism in relation to transformations through evolution, first recognizing the equivalence of revolutions and reforms, and then attacking the revolutions with criticism as a bloody, extremely inefficient, full of costs and leading to the inevitable dictatorship path.

Now great reforms (that is, revolutions "from above") are considered the same social anomalies as great revolutions. They are united by the fact that these ways of resolving contradictions are opposed to healthy, normal practice of gradual, continuous reform in a self-regulating society.

The "revolution-reform" dilemma is replaced by a clarification of the relationship between reform and permanent regulation. In this context, both revolution and changes "from above" "cure" a neglected disease (the first - by "surgical intervention", the second - by "therapeutic methods"), while early and permanent prevention is probably necessary in order to ensure social progress.

Therefore, in social science today, the emphasis is shifting from the antinomy "revolution-reform" to "innovation-reform". Innovation means a one-time ordinary improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capacity of society in specific conditions. It is she who can ensure the greatest social progress in the future.

The criteria for social progress discussed above are not unconditional. Modern science recognizes the priority of the humanities over others. However, the general criterion of social progress has not yet been established.

Social Progress - the movement of society from simple and backward forms to more advanced and complex ones.

The opposite concept regression - the return of society to obsolete, backward forms.

Since progress involves assessing changes in society as positive or negative, it can be understood by different researchers in different ways, depending on the criteria for progress. As such, they distinguish:

development of productive forces;

development of science and technology;

increasing people's freedom;

improvement of the human mind;

moral development.

Since these criteria do not correspond, and often contradict each other, the ambiguity of social progress is manifested: progress in some areas of society can lead to regression in others.

In addition, progress has such a feature as inconsistency: any progressive discovery of mankind can turn against itself. For example, the discovery of nuclear energy led to the creation of the nuclear bomb.

P Progress in society can be carried out in various ways:

I .

1) revolution - forced transition of society from one socio-political system to another, affecting most areas of life.

Signs of a revolution:

a fundamental change in the existing system;

affects all spheres of social life sharp;

abrupt change.

2) reform - Gradual, successive transformations of certain spheres carried out by the authorities.

There are two types of reforms: progressive (beneficial to society) and regressive (having a negative impact).

Signs of reform:

a smooth change that does not affect the fundamentals;

affects, as a rule, only one sphere of society.

II .

1) revolution - abrupt, abrupt, unpredictable changes leading to a qualitative transformation.

2) evolution - gradual, smooth transformations, which are predominantly quantitative in nature.

1.17. Multivariate development of society

Society - such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that it is impossible to unambiguously describe and predict its development. However, in social science, several types of classification of the development of societies have developed.

I. Classification of society according to the main factor of production.

1. Traditional (agrarian, pre-industrial) society. The main factor of production is land. The main product is produced in agriculture, extensive technologies dominate, non-economic coercion is widespread, and technology is underdeveloped. The social structure is unchanged, social mobility is practically absent. Religious consciousness determines all spheres of society.

2. Industrial (industrial) society. The main factor of production is capital. The transition from manual to machine labor, from traditional to industrial society - the industrial revolution. Mass industrial production dominates. Science and technology are developing, and they are improving the industry. The social structure is changing and the possibility of changing social status appears. Religion fades into the background, there is an individualization of consciousness, and pragmatism and utilitarianism are affirmed.

3. Post-industrial (information) society. The main factor of production is knowledge, information. The service sector and small-scale production dominate. Economic growth is determined by the growth of consumption ("consumer society"). High social mobility, the determining factor in the social structure is the middle class. Political pluralism, democratic values ​​and the importance of the human person. The importance of spiritual values.

Formational and civilizational approaches

3.2.1. Socio-economic formation- a historically defined type of society that arises on the basis of a certain mode of production of material goods

Marxism: change of formations primitive - communal, feudal, capitalist, communist (1930 socialism, communism)

Features and concepts of the formational approach

– basis ( production relations that develop between people in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods). Based on property relations

- superstructure - a set of legal, political, ideological, religious, cultural and other institutions and relations.

- production relations and productive forces ( people, tools) = mode of production

- social revolution- with the development of productive forces and the aging of the mode of production

Principles of the approach: universality, regularity in the change of socio-economic formations

3.2.2 Civilization- the level, stage of development of society, material and spiritual culture, following barbarism and savagery. Civilizations differ from each other: in a specific way of life, a system of values, ways of interconnection with the outside world.

Today, scientists distinguish: Western and Eastern civilizations.

Comparison of Western and Eastern civilization

Progress

3.3.1 Progress (moving forward) - the transition from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the complex, from the imperfect to the more perfect.

social progress- this is a world-historical process, which is characterized by the ascent of mankind from primitiveness (savagery) to civilization, which is based on the achievements of scientific and technical, political, legal, moral and ethical.

Regression (moving backwards) - transition from higher to lower, degradation.

3.3.2..Types of social progress

Progress of science and technology (NTP, NTR)

Progress in the development of productive forces (industrial revolution)

Political progress (transition from totalitarianism to democracy)

Progress in the field of culture (recognition of a person as the highest value)

3.3.3. Criteria of social progress:

Criterion– indicator by which something can be evaluated

§ development of the human mind

§ development of science and technology

§ development of productive forces

§ increase in the standard of living, degree of social protection

§ improvement of people's morality (humanism)

§ the degree of freedom of the individual in society

Controversy of social progress

3.3.5. Indicators of the progressive development of society:

● average human life expectancy

● infant mortality

● state of health

● level and quality of education

● level of cultural development

● feeling of satisfaction with life

● degree of respect for human rights

● attitude to nature

Mankind as a whole has never regressed, but stopped in development for a while - stagnation

Social Progress - it is a global historical process of the development of society from the lowest to the highest, from a primitive, wild state to a higher, civilized one. This process is due to the development of scientific and technical, social and political, moral and cultural achievements.

First theory of progress described by the famous French publicist Abbé Saint-Pierre in his book "Remarks on the Continuous Progress of the General Reason" in 1737. According to his theory, progress is laid down by God in every person and this process is inevitable, like natural phenomena. Further progress study as a social phenomenon continued and deepened.

progress criteria.

Progress criteria are the main parameters of its characteristics:

• social;
• economic;
• spiritual;
• scientific and technical.

social criterion - is the level of social development. It implies the level of people's freedoms, the quality of life, the degree of difference between rich and poor, the presence of a middle class, etc. The main engines of social development are revolutions and reforms. That is, a radical complete change in all layers of social life and its gradual change, transformation. Different political schools evaluate these engines differently. For example, everyone knows that Lenin preferred revolution.

Economic criterion - this is the growth of GDP, trade and banking, and other parameters of economic development. The economic criterion is the most important, as it affects the rest. It is difficult to think about creativity or spiritual self-education when there is nothing to eat.

Spiritual criterion - moral development is one of the most controversial, since different models of society are evaluated differently. For example, unlike European countries, Arab countries do not consider tolerance towards sexual minorities a spiritual progress, and even vice versa - a regression. However, there are generally accepted parameters by which one can judge spiritual progress. For example, the condemnation of murder and violence is characteristic of all modern states.

Scientific and technical criterion - it is the presence of new products, scientific discoveries, inventions, advanced technologies, in short - innovations. Most often, progress means this criterion in the first place.

alternative theories.

Concept of progress has been criticized since the 19th century. A number of philosophers and historians deny progress as a social phenomenon completely. J. Vico considers the history of society as a cyclical development with ups and downs. A. Toynbee cites as an example the history of various civilizations, each of which has phases of emergence, growth, decline and decay (Maya, Roman Empire, etc.).

In my opinion, these disputes are connected with a different understanding of the definitions of progress as such, as well as with a different understanding of its social significance.

However, without social progress, we would not have society in its modern form with its achievements and mores.